Monthly Archives: January 2013

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

A bill introduced into the AZ state legislature by Representative Bob Thorpe would require all students graduating from public schools in AZ to swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. I have several problems with this bill. First and foremost not all high school students believe in God. There are atheists and they would have to swear on God. Also there are individuals of different faiths that may have problems with this such as Muslims, Jehova Witnesses or Quakers that may take issue with a loyalty oath (Phoenix Business Journal). Being forced to swear on God is the biggest issue and most likely one to bring a legal challenge if HB2467 is made law.

But there are other issues. For one AZ ranked 44th in the nation for education according to Quality Counts report by Education Week. Yet legislators are spending time worrying about oaths for graduating seniors. Maybe they should spend a bit more time worry about getting kids to the point of graduating. Or maybe they should ensure students are prepared when they leave high school. I know being a product of AZ public schools that I was not prepared for college after graduating high school.

Next is the issue of forcing students to take an oath of loyalty at all. AZ state Representative Thorpe said “”Constitutional oaths are common for elected officials and government employees, including the governor, the Legislature and members of our law enforcement and our military,”
(The Arizona Republic). Well high school is not elected office, military or law enforcement. All of those positions are voluntary choices on the part of the individual whereas high school is not. Furthermore, each of those positions depend heavily on the constitution. Law enforcement, military and the governor enforce the Constitution and laws being part of the executive branch. The legislature writes the laws which must conform to the constitution. Graduating high school students do not do this. Thorpe is relying on a false equivocation.

Beyond that the bill would face legal challenges if it became law.

“Both bills are clearly unconstitutional, ironically enough,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham. “You can’t require students to attend school … and then require them to either pledge allegiance to the flag or swear this loyalty oath in order to graduate. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.”

That means if HB2467 became law the state would be wasting money in legal battles over oaths rather than investing that money into education. What is the point in that? Why waste tax payer money writing a bill, discussing the bill and potentially passing it only to face legal challenges once it is passed? What could it gain for AZ?

“It is my hope that if Arizona students are given the opportunity to also take a simple, Constitutional oath, that this will inspire them to learn more about our Constitutional form of government and the rich history of our nation and founding.”

Well I guess that is what it is supposed to accomplish. That seems a bit bass ackwards. He hopes that an oath taken on graduation day will ‘inspire’ kids to learn more about the Constitution and history. Huh? I thought you were supposed to learn that in school not after you graduate. If he wants that then maybe he should be focused on history and government curriculum not an oath of loyalty. You know maybe actually teach that stuff instead of just trying to inspire student to learn it on their own.

Overall this proposed bill is pointless, unconstitutional and a waste of tax payer dollars to even write.

Most people would agree that the educational system of the US is in need of serious work. Students are unprepared either for the work place or for college. Science and math education are in need of drastic improvement. Under performing schools are told to improve yet they don’t and nothing more happens. Something needs done about education in the US, we need a school voucher system.

There are several reasons we should move to a voucher system. First off the competition can help promote better education outcomes and greater innovation in education. Schools will have a great freedom to try new means of improving education without state and federal regulations guiding dictating the methods to be used. So they can try to fix our educational system in the manner that seems best to them. While at the same time the competition allows parents to pick and choose the best school to fit their children. That way parents have a greater choice over school since they can select which of many schools they send their children thus allowing them to tailor their children’s education to fit their values as a parent.

Next the ideas and methods developed from competition of schools will be adopted by other schools. That is schools which perform extremely well will be emulated by other schools trying to improve their performance. While schools which perform poorly will not be emulated.

Also vouchers will hold schools more accountable than they are currently. Parents will have the choice of whether or not to attend a schools. So if a school is performing poorly then parents don’t have to send their children there the next year. They can find another option. When children are assign to school regardless of school performance and parents don’t have any other options then the school has little incentive to improve. The district may tell them to improve, but they will still have about as many students next year as last year which means they will have about the same funding. The school doesn’t deal with any feel any consequences of poor performance, rather it is the children that suffer from it. So they school doesn’t have to really worry about improving performance.

Now the two problems with vouchers have to do with the allocation of funding. First in our current system in many places school funding is tied to property tax. That creates massive disparities between schools in rich and poor neighborhood. Back in Phoenix (my home town), I use to work at a school for developmentally disabled children that the local districts couldn’t handle. We got a child one day from a North Scottsdale school which is an affluent suburb of Phoenix. Well the school didn’t have an extra bus to send the child to us. So they hired a limo company to take him back and forth until they could buy a van and hire somebody to drive it. This kid was showing up in a limo for several weeks. It was ridiculous. How can they justify spending that kind of money? They clearly had more dollars than sense. They had so much extra because they got more from property taxes all the while other students barely have the basics.

For this reason I think that education funding needs to be separated from property taxes. All children deserve to be invested in equally. Affluent children do not need to have greater public funding than poor children. Yet at the same time we can’t ignore the simple fact that the cost of operating a schools does depend in some ways on the area it is located. The overhead for school property is going to be more expensive in urban areas than rural and the overhead for schools within urban areas will vary depending on the neighborhoods. Though at the same time it should not be highly connected to the neighborhood so as not to create vast disparities in the education between the poor and rich. That is way the value of the voucher should depend in part on the location of the individual but only in part. It should have a base value that is adjusted based on the cost of living in the area surrounding the individual. The area should be sufficiently large so that poor neighborhood include rich ones in their cost of living and rich neighborhoods include poor. It could be something like the cost of living for the 50 mile area surrounding the individual compared to the cost of living for the state as a whole. That factor would be applied to the base value which would be the average per student cost of education for the state. So say the average cost per student in your state is $7,000 and your area cost of living is 120% of the average statewide cost of living then your voucher would be worth $19,000 * 1.2 = $12,000. The whole point to this is to help combat the disparities in education based on family socioeconomic status.

The next issue is the question of how much tuition will cost. If everybody got a school voucher worth $10,000 in tuition, you would quickly find that most schools happen to cost $10,000 in tuition or more. No school would opt to charge less than the voucher is worth. But that would encourage waste. Also that would mitigate some of the pressures of competition since there would be no pressure on the price of education only on the results of education. In order to deal with this vouchers need to be connect to individual accounts. Any unspent money from your voucher rolls over to the next year. If any is left unspent after graduation then it can be used to attend college. So if your voucher is worth $10,000 and you pick a school that only charges $8,000 tuition then you would have $2,000 rollover in your account for next year. Then next year you would have a $12,000 voucher. That gives parents and schools a reason to focus both on educational outcomes but also the cost of education. Then parents could decide how best to spend their child’s education money, maybe they will send them somewhere that is good but not the best for grade school so that they can afford the top end high school. Maybe they will find a good value for their dollar and save extra for college. Or maybe they will put some of their own money on top of the voucher and send them somewhere more expensive every year. The parents will have a choice over it. At the same time it creates competition between schools on price. They will have to offer a reasonable price for the education so as to entice parent into sending their children to that school.

This plan will provide competition among schools for both educational performance and cost of tuition. It will allow greater freedom to innovate while allowing schools to emulate top performers. Finally it will put parents back in the driver’s seat of education and allow them to make meaningful choices about their children’s future.

The goal of education is not to produce higher test scores. The goal of education is to produce citizens that can sustain our democracy into the future.

I flipped on the radio this morning and heard the quote above. I don’t know who it was that said it or anything. But the idea struck me as poignant. Often times in the debate over how to fix or reform the educational system people make assumptions about the purpose or goal of education but rarely do they make those assumptions explicit. So what are some of the goals of education that some people ascribe too? Well the answer depends both on context, your relation to education and your personal beliefs.

The first conception I will look at is the idea that the goal of education is to produce higher test scores. Most of us will reject that as the goal in favor for something broader and more comprehensive than simply test scores. Yet this is a conception to is built into our system and our thinking. Schools have used standardized test scores for decades to evaluate students, schools and sometimes teachers. When a school and/or teacher evaluations are tied to standardized tests then at least some teachers and administrators are going to focus primarily on the goal of improving test scores. Also we all have known students who strive for the highest possible grades, you know the type that freaks out if they get a B+ instead of an A. Those students are clearly focusing on higher test scores as the goal of education.

Now test scores can be a reasonable goal of education in some circumstances. First off it is difficult to compare the performance of various schools without some form of measuring stick. You need a neutral measure by which to compare school performances. Standardized tests can provide that. The school performance data produced from such tests then can feedback into parent evaluations and choices of schools since they need some means of comparing schools. Thus higher test scores becomes a goal of education at least in part because they use high test scores to determine the optimal school for their children.

Next test scores can be a reasonable goal when the course / subject is primarily focused on concrete skills and knowledge that need effectively applied. There are classes we all take that are very application focused and for those tests seem to be an excellent choice to evaluate performance. Here I am thinking many of the trade type skills, lab skills, mathematics and such. If you have ever taken a college level lab course you probably have done a lab practical too. That is where you demonstrate all of the skills you developed throughout the course in one hands on test. You have to show that you can actually do what is expected and you are evaluated on performance. Here the evaluation ties very directly to the course goals of teaching practical application of skills. This also holds true for other applied skills like taking vitals for a CNA or EMT, or replacing an alternator for a mechanic, or identifying the problem with an AC unit, or even calculating resistance in a circuit.

The next conception comes directly from the quote. The idea that the goal of education is to produce citizens that can sustain our democracy into the future. This is an idea I had not considered and I have no idea how wide spread it is but I found it interesting. I agree that it is important for our next generation to be capable of maintaining our government. If the government collapses then everybody faces massive problems. Now by no means do I believe this is a goal that is focused on heavily in education. The state of knowledge about the government and how it operates is abysmal. Schools don’t seem to spend much time focusing on the inner workings of the government or truly thorough discussions of the Constitution. I would think that if this were a goal then good citizenship would become a primary focus as educators try and get children involved in politics.

The biggest problem I see is the question of how to measure success. How can you evaluate if a school is producing citizens that can sustain our democracy? Would evaluations be based on measures of civic participation (voting, signing petitions, writing elected officials, attending city council, attending demonstrations)? Or would evaluations be based on civic knowledge (Constitutional knowledge, identification of major political figures, understanding of party platforms, familiarity with election mechanics)? Though I think it is important for people to know about their government I do not think that is the primary focus of education. But it should not be neglected either. Even my daughter (almost 5yrs) can tell you that the President only gets two turns (turns make more sense to her that terms). She can tell you that Mitt Romney and Obama were in the election and that the people picked Obama to take his second turn. Also that Obama is not allowed another turn ever again because he had his two turns.

As a parent I think the goal of education is to help prepare my children to successfully navigate the world are in. The purpose is to prepare my children to eventually go out on their own and make their way in the world successfully. I think many would agree with this goal for education. Though I am not sure we would all agree on what success constitutes. I see this as requiring at minimum basic understanding of the basics of academic education including math, science and English. But also they should have an understanding of the elements and function of government. Regardless whether they like it or not politics will have an impact on the lives of my children and they must have at least the foundational knowledge necessary to deal with that. They should know the fundamental rights that citizens enjoy in the US (at least in theory). They should have a fair idea about what both major parties stand for. They should understand how powers are separated both on a federal level but also between levels of government (federal, state, county, city etc). Also education should provide a cultural foundation of knowledge. Children should have basic understanding about all the major world religions and their views. Whether or not they are religious they will interact with individuals of all religions and should have basic knowledge about those religions. They should also have basic knowledge of cultural customs to help them deal with people from other places better. But equally important it is important to teach about the varieties of cultural customs in order to broaden their horizons. By learning about how the customs of other cultures work they can learn to see culture at work in our society. I don’t want them to believe that their narrow little world is how the whole world is. I don’t want them to expect all other people to make the same choices as they do.

The problem here is how do we measure success. I don’t believe success is purely the income you earn or the toys you own. So you can’t just gather income data on children in order to evaluate the success of a school. Also even though I value education immensely as shown by the fact that my wife is finishing her PhD and I am planning to attend grad school in the fall. Despite that I don’t believe higher education is for everybody or necessary for success. To me success requires involves a combination of productivity, happiness (on the job and at home), leisure time and overall comfortableness of life. This is no easy thing to measure without extensive research and even then it would be missing critical information.

What is the goal of education to you? How would you measure a school or teacher’s success in achieving that goal?

Disclaimer: This was written as my writing sample so I could apply to graduate school so it is quite lengthy. But the topic fits well for my blog so I figured I would post it here.

August 2011, production began on an obscure low budget film set in ancient Arabia. A few months later the film screened for the first and only time at a nearly empty Hollywood theater. Over the next several months, portions of the film were cut and dubbed over in English. On July 1, 2012, it re-emerged on YouTube as a trailer for an anti-Islamic movie called “The Innocence of Muslims”. The film depicts Muhammad as a fraud and philander as well as approving of child abuse and molestation. On September 4, 2012, a version of the trailer dubbed in Arabic appeared on YouTube, which made it accessible to the majority of Muslims. Four days later Egyptian media caught wind of the trailer where it received heavy coverage including coverage by hardline TV host Khaled Abdallah (Anti-Islam Film, 2012).

On September 11, 2012, protesters marched on the US embassy in Cairo chanting slogans against the film and calling for the US ambassador to leave Egypt. At approximately 7pm in Cairo, the protesters climbed the embassy wall, took down the American flag, destroyed the flag and replaced it with a black flag reading, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah” (Ahmed, 2012). Several hours later, in a likely unrelated event, the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya came under attack by rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons. Four Americans including US Ambassador Stevens died in the attack. Over the next two weeks protests and violence spread to more than 50 countries, resulting in dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries and damage to six embassies (Timeline, 2012).

In the past, anti-Islamic events such as the release of the Danish anti-Muslim cartoons (Laegaard, 2007), the accidental Koran burning by US military (D’Souza , 2012), Terry Jones’ threat to burn a Koran (Goldman, 2010) and the Dutch film “Fitna” (Hartoyo, 2010) were perceived as insults to both Islam and Muhammad, resulting in protests. Since “The Innocence of Muslims” is quite disparaging toward Muhammad and received a great deal of Egyptian media exposure there is no surprise that protests erupted. Rather, what is surprising is the quantity of violence and destruction caused by the protests.

In this paper it will be argued that the expansion of political opportunity in Egypt and Libya, due to recent revolutions, largely account for the events of September 11, 2012. The framing of those events by the media combined, with political opportunity, resulted in violent protests spreading to others countries. The subsequent protests and coverage by the media reinforced the perception that the protest cycle was violent and encouraged protests to spread further.

Political Opportunity and Political Participation

Due to the recent revolutions of 2011, both Egypt and Libya were in social and political flux. Shifting forces in these societies created openings exploited on September 11, 2012. This paper adopts Tarrow’s (1996) definition of political opportunity structure (POS) which states “consistent – but not necessarily formal, permanent, or national – signals to social or political actors which either encourage or discourage them to use their internal resources to form social movements.” Political opportunities come in a variety of forms, but by definition, all political opportunities either encourage or discourage political participation (Meyer & Minkoff, 2004). The fact that POS has a very generally definition is both a boon and a bane, it encompasses a wide range of elements and applies to a multitude of cases yet it lacks specificity making it difficult to apply in a predictive or prescriptive manner (Meyer, 2004).

This paper utilizes four major forms of political opportunity, 1) increased access to the political system, 2) political divisions among elite actors, 3) availability of elite allies and 4) diminished state repression (McAdam, 1996, Rucht, 1996, Brockett, 1991). First, when individuals believe there is access to and influence over the political system they are more apt to take action. A more open political system invites greater participation of all forms by the constituency. By welcoming political participation, the state encourages the perception that the populace affects government actions, which may lead to institutional (electoral politics, petitions, litigation etc.) or extra-institutional (protest, political violence, demonstrations etc.) political participation (Meyer, 2007). Second, divisions within the elite of a state encourage groups to pressure the government for influence. Divisions internal to the government weaken the state and its ability to resist external pressures since the internal conflict ties up resources and energy. Third, the availability of elite allies bolsters the propensity for action by providing an opportunity to gain influence. Allies can come in many forms including elected officials, government regulators, religious authorities, high profile media sources and the intellectual elite. Allies bring legitimacy and public attention to a cause, which in turn builds support among the populace. It is not uncommon for elite divisions and availability of allies to interact with one another. Divisions can pressure political elite to seek out new support in order to build or solidify personal power. Finally, reduced state repression allows for greater political participation in all forms. With the threat of imprisonment, injury or even death, removed people are more likely to attempt to influence the state. Each of these forms of political opportunities may serve to either encourage or discourage political participation depending on the context.

All four of these forms of POS were present in Egypt and Libya prior to September 2012. In both cases, the opportunities served to encouraged political participation. The countries exhibit parallels caused by recent revolutions in each. These events caused political structures in these two countries to enter a state of fluctuation as new ways of governing develop. Since the countries are in the process of determining fundamental features of their governments, the potential for influence is far greater than when a political structure is well entrenched. Thus, those desiring sway over government having greater reason to push their claims since the responses to those claims may be enshrined in the fundamental structure of the emerging state. Though Egypt and Libya show the presence of the same forms of POS, each has its own distinct character resulting from the unique political conditions of the country. These differences require evaluation of each country individually.

The Political Environment of Egypt

Prior to 2011, the formal political system of Egypt was a multi-party semi-presidential system with power split between the President and the Prime Minister. In reality, the President wielded a majority of the power. A state of emergency declared in 1967 lasted until 2011, with an 18-month break in 1980-1981. Under Emergency Law the Egyptian government repressed opposition; censored information; controlled legal political parties; imprisoned individuals without trials; tried civilians in military courts; and outlawed demonstrations. The government maintained control of the press through intimidation; journalists could be fined, imprisoned, indefinitely detained without trial or even tortured for violating the law. The ban on non-governmental political activity required government approval for political parties and banned street demonstrations. This effectively prevented political participation by the populace. For 30 years, from 1981 to 2011, Egyptians lived under the autocratic rule of President Hosni Mubarak who ran unopposed in many single candidate elections. In fact, the multi-candidate election in 2005 resulted in the imprisonment of the opposition candidate after the election (Bush & Mercer, 2012, Dalacoura, 2011).

All of that changed in 2011, when hundreds of thousands of Egyptian citizens took to the streets in mass protest to the rule of Mubarak. These demonstrations resulted in his resignation on February 11, 2011 (Abdelrahman, 2011). Since that point, the government has been in flux. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces assumed power until elections the next year. On June 30, 2012, Mohamed Morsi became the first democratically elected Egyptian president. Parliament has been dissolved, then reinstated and selected a constitutional assembly to draft a new constitution (Bush & Mercer, 2012). The courts have challenged the legitimacy of the constitutional assembly and parliament. President Morsi has ousted the military leadership and assumed legislative powers. This creates a great deal of uncertainty in the political environment, which can be conducive to collection action. By September of 2012, Egypt exhibited all of the elements previously outlined political opportunities: increased access to the political system, elite divisions, availability of elite allies and reduced state repression.

Under Mubarak, the public’s access to the political system was extremely limited. The regime held all the power with little concern for change or reform. During that time, the regime outlawed some political parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood of which president Morsi is a member. Furthermore, the state did not tolerate opposition and censored dissent from the public eye. Following the 2011 change of power, the government has allowed political parties to form and thereby granting greater respect to dissent as well as providing a legal public forum for the expression of opposition. This has sent a clear signal to the populace that the government is potentially open to address grievances. The open democratic elections demonstrated that the political system was open to influence by the populace through electoral politics. No longer were parties and elections controlled by the government, instead the populace could now vote for candidates and parties which represent their beliefs. This newfound influence over government serves to encourage political participation both institutionally and extra-institutionally by cultivating the perception that the government is open and responsive to the claims of the constituency (Meyer, 2007).

Tilly (1978) proposed the concept of a curvilinear relationship between the openness of a political system and protest. Simply put, when a society is at the extremes of openness (i.e. extremely open or closed) protest is at its lowest point. Within closed political systems, there is little protest since there is functionally no prospect for influence over the system. At the other extreme, in an open political system protest is reduced since it is unneeded to gain influence. Yet in the middle, protest activity is at its greatest since there is both potential for influence as well as frequently good reason to desire change. Based on the idea of a curvilinear relationship between openness and protest, one would expect there to be an increase in protests in Egypt after the revolution (Tilly, 1978). The move from extreme repression to more openness has indeed shifted the Egyptian political system toward the center of the curve where protest activity is highest. Furthermore, since the previous regime has been overthrown there is an interest in the current regime to be more responsive to the constituency. All of this combines to show that the Egyptian political system is currently more open under Morsi than under Mubarak.

Internal divisions have characterized Egypt’s post-revolution political system. Since the revolution, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the Supreme Constitutional Court dissolved parliament and attempted to curtail the powers of the president. President Morsi has since reconvened parliament and expanded his own powers (Bush & Mercer, 2012). The Supreme Court decision is currently pending on potential dissolution of Parliament and the Constitutional Assembly. Furthermore, Morsi has replaced most of the military leadership, which is bound to create divisions within the military. A divided political system invites challenge by demonstrating the weakness of the political system. A divided opponent has resources tied up with the internal struggle, which leaves fewer resources available to engage an outside challenger. Internal division can result in pronounced resource depletion since resources utilized on both sides of the conflict weaken the government as a whole. Weakened opponents signal challengers to the system that the time is right to make a move. This serves to encourage more challenges thus weakens the system even more. Additionally, internal conflict can cause political actors to fear for their position leading to desperate decisions to end the conflict both internally as well as externally. Those decisions lead to hasty agreements or the acceptance of terms that otherwise would not be considered. The relations between political actors are strained and uncertain. Egypt’s newly elected Parliament has no precedents for relationships; therefore, any alliances are new and untested. There is no certainty as to where other political actors or the public stand on any particular issue. There are probably many issues and situations that political parties and political actors have not considered. That is because the political parties, candidates and members are new to politics, and have not developed positions on every issue. That creates an opportunity for those seeking influence. Political actors will be force to take sides if an issue is pushed. That serves two purposes, first it can create political division making the state an easier target to influence and second it can create allies among the political elite. These divisions serve to encourage political participation since resistance to challengers is more difficult for the weakened Egyptian state.

There were favorable elite allies in the case of the September 11, 2012 Egyptian protest. The Muslim Brotherhood performed very well in the parliament elections and succeeded in getting President Morsi elected. Thus when it comes to protesting a film denigrating Muhammad it is fair to assume there would be many elite allies available. The support by the political elite offered a greater chance of influence over policy especially in regards to the defamation of Islam since they should be open to the claims of the protesters and more apt to make choices that are beneficial to the protesters. Additionally, when political elites are sympathetic to a cause, it signals to the populace that the risks of protesting are likely minimized. The outrage toward the film presented in the media further enhances this, which creates the perception that the populace would support a protest against the film even if they do not directly participate. This created a favorable cultural climate to push for more extreme demands such as ejecting the US ambassador. Outright rejection of such extreme demands is the likely outcome in the absence of both popular support and political support. Whereas with popular and political support, it is much more likely that traction will be gained and the government will potentially act on the demands. Finally, the presence of both political and media allies creates a perception of legitimacy for the protesters, they know that others support their position and thus increasing the validity of their actions. For each of these reasons the presence of elite allies encouraged the populace to participate in protesting “The Innocence of Muslims”.

The final indicator that Egyptian politics were open to popular participation is diminished political repression. Mubarak outlawed protests and repressed opposition using the police. However, after the revolution that was no longer the case. Policing is a good measure of repression and political openness for three reasons, it is ubiquitous across nations, it has direct impact on social movement participants and it is a direct government response to the social movement (della Porta, 1996). Policing makes sense as a variable to measure the openness of a system since all nations have some form of law enforcement, which allows for cross-national comparisons. It is an important measure because it has a great deal of direct impact on the participants of a protest or social movement. If the police brutalize, imprison or kill protesters then few will chose to participate due to the high cost of being involved. On the other hand, police tolerance or even acceptance of protests minimizes the potential cost of participation thus encouraging more people to participate. Finally, since policing is a direct response from the state it serves as an expression of the state’s receptiveness to social movements and protests. The diminished state repression in Egypt, since the revolution, indicates to the populace that the government will potentially be receptive to the claims and challenges of the population, which serves to encourage greater participation in the political process.

The combination of increased in political openness, division among the elite, presence of elite allies, and diminished, repression served to encourage protests over the film. This minimizes the potential risks of participating, while maximizing the possibility of influence. Public outrage and sympathy from political elites legitimized the choice to protest. That left the political climate optimal for the protests of September 11, 2012 to take place in Cairo.

Libyan Political Climate

The assault on the US embassy in Benghazi is fundamentally different from the Cairo embassy protests with one critical commonality, the recent expansion of political opportunity in both countries. Libya experienced the same four forms of POS in a similar manner to Egypt. Though Libya and Egypt both successfully ousted an autocratic regime, the path each took was drastically different and those differences guided the variations in political opportunity between the two countries. In order to understand the exploitation of political opportunity in Libya, an understanding of the situation prior to September 11, 2012 is necessary. Then it is possible to examine the political opportunities present, which show parallels with Egypt, as well as its own unique character.

Shortly after the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, a revolt began in Libya resulting in the death of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. On paper, the government in Libya was an open direct democracy and Gaddafi only held a ceremonial position with no real power. Yet in reality, Gaddafi ruled the country with an iron fist. Dissent was illegal; in fact, the founding of a political party was grounds for execution. Opposition resulted in imprisonment, execution or assassination. Furthermore, the government censored the press to an extreme degree. According to Freedom House, Libya was the most censored state in the Middle East and North African area (2009). On top of that, Transparency International declared Libya to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world (2010). Over the years, Gaddafi amassed a tremendous fortune including tens of billions of US dollars and over a billion British pounds in assets in the UK (Kerbaj, 2011, Lichtlbau, Rhode & Risen, 2011). Grievances over corruption, repression, censorship and other human rights violations erupted into an armed revolt against the state in February of 2011.

Unlike Egypt’s short and largely non-violent revolution, Libya suffered through an 8-month violent civil war to overthrow the regime. The revolution began as protests and quickly escalated with security forces firing live ammunition on protesters. From there the protests quickly evolved into an armed rebellion. Gaddafi, in his effort to quell the unrest, utilized snipers, artillery, gunships and even warplanes on the civilian uprising. In March 2011, the UN intervened in Libya by enforcing a no-fly zone, a naval blockade and logistical support for the rebel forces. Despite the additional support, it still took another 7 months of bloody conflict to resolve the civil war. The aftermath left tens of thousands dead and injured, the entire political structure destroyed and civilians armed with military weaponry. The National Transitional Council (NTC), aided by official recognition of the UN, assumed the responsibility of governing for ten months. During that time, the NTC faced factional fighting from Gaddafi loyalists and civilian militias. In August 2012, the NTC handed power over to the newly elected General National Congress (GNC) (Dalacoura, 2012, Kinsman, 2011).

Despite the differences between the Egyptian and Libyan revolutions both resulted in expanded political opportunities. The same four forms of POS are present; Libya now has increased political access by the populace, divisions among elite actors, available elite allies and diminished state repression. Much like Egypt, Libya’s population has greater access and influence on the political system than ever before. In Libya, the uprising replaced the entire regime, as opposed to Egypt where much of the political power structure continued. This leaves Libyans with potentially more influence since the entire structure is still in development.

Under the rule of Gaddafi, Libyans held very little influence over the government. Corruption and repression successfully closed the system off from political participation. The potential for positive outcomes was much smaller than for negative outcomes such as imprisonment. However, since the revolution, the political system is far more open than ever before. In fact, the system opened up in much the same manner as Egypt by holding free elections and undertaking the development of a new constitution. Free elections not only allow direct political participation but also signal to the public that the government is receptive to the concerns of the people. Furthermore, Libya is in the process of creating a constitution and more importantly, a new national identity. That means there is the potential of influencing the fundamental structure and conception of government. The choices the government makes at this stage in its development will alter its final form. The malleability of the political structure encourages political participation due to a much greater potential for success. In a newly formed state, the impact of political participation may reverberate through the system for decades to come. The most critical aspect is opening the government to political participation both institutionally and extra-institutionally.

Unlike Egypt, the political system of Libya is nascent. In Egypt, because Mubarak stepped down, the revolution resulted in the continuation of a majority of the political structure. Whereas in Libya the armed revolution required the formation of an entirely new government, which meant any alliances and associations are untested and coalitions might be fragile. It also means that there are likely to be divisions within the government and that allies are likely available. Additionally, new political leaders are untested and the new leadership’s reaction could affect future policy. Under these conditions, it is possible to find allies for one’s position even utilizing violence and terrorism. Extremism can force an issue before the public and government; in doing so, it forces political actors to take sides on the issue. This serves a dual purpose of dividing political actors while potentially gaining allies holding a sympathetic position. The polarizing and destabilizing effects of terrorism further enhance the available political opportunities by dividing and weakening the government. Additionally the reactions of untested public officials may greatly influence the direction of the state. Government instability serves to encourage political participation.

The final and most important change in Libya is the discontinuation of repression. When the revolution ended, there were no police or any form of law enforcement, which had to be developed as part of the rebuilding the country. While at the same time, a great deal of military weaponry was available to the public from raided military depots during the revolution, which has left many heavily armed groups within Libya, whom law enforcement were ineffective at controlling. This created an ideal situation for the use of political violence. Not only is law enforcement weak and weapons are available but also the government is more open to influence that in the past.

September 11th and the Framing of the Events

Freed from the Leviathan’s tyrannical grip the populace of Egypt and Libya found themselves afforded greater political opportunity than ever before. The political opportunities created an environment conducive to political participation yet a spark was required in order to ignite the situation. In Egypt that came in the form of an anti-Islamic film called “The Innocence of Muslims”. The media had begun reporting on it 3 days prior and it received heavy coverage. The conditions were ideal for protesting the film because of the presence of Islamic allies within the government, diminished state repression and recent successful use of protest to evoke change. On September 11, 2012, hundreds of protesters march on the US embassy in Cairo chanting slogans against the film and chanting “Say it, don’t fear: Their ambassador must leave” (“Mysterious anti-Muslim…”, 2012). Protesters gathered around the embassy and despite the presence of riot police, they scaled the walls. Once inside the courtyard protesters brought down the American flag and replaced it with a black flag that said, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah” (Ahmed, 2012). During all of this, the riot police did not utilize any forceful interventions; rather they took a passive role in the event (“Mysterious anti-Muslim…”, 2012). The crowd of protesters grew into the evening before dissipating; estimates vary between 1,000 and 5,000 protesters present with 2,000-3,000 being the most commonly reported numbers (Ahmed, 2012,”Egypt protesters…”, 2012, “Egypt Clashes”, 2012, Bradley & Nissenbaum, 2012, Elyan, 2012). This event was highly documented by amateur video as well as the presence of an Egypt Independent reporter on site early in the protest.

In Benghazi, the situation was ideal for a different form of political action. The accessibility of weapons combined with weak law enforcement allowed for the staging of an assault on the US embassy. The spark may have been the film like in Egypt though it might have been the anniversary of 9/11 or simply a convenient opportunity. Regardless of the spark, several hours after the Cairo protests a group of armed men attacked the US embassy in Benghazi with assault weapons and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The initial assault killed US ambassador Chris Stevens and one another American. Early the next morning the remaining embassy staff were attacked a second time which resulted in the deaths of two former Navy Seals.

Whether or not the two events were truly connected does not matter since the media connected two events in news reports. The media associated both events with the film “The Innocence of Muslims” in a variety of news sources including NY Times, NPR, AP, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and Egypt Independent. Most news articles contained information on both events, most stated that the film was a cause and most mentioned protesters or rioters in Benghazi. This created a perception that protests over the film caused both incidents; only in Cairo is this verified to be true. It is important at this point to note that the perception of the events on September 11, 2012, plays a far greater role in the subsequent protests than the reality of the events. Most of those involved the subsequent protests were not present at the original two events thus media was a primary means of acquiring information. For that reason, the focus will be on news accounts from the first days of the protest cycle not subsequently revealed facts.

Several key features of the media accounts influenced the framing of subsequent protests as violent. The message conveyed by news sources depicted both events as being connected to each other, associated with protests over the film “The Innocence of Muslims”, aggressive / violent and resulting in no negative consequences for the participants (“US Envoy Dies…”, 2012, “US Missions…”, 2012, Kirkpatrick & Myers, 2012, Neuman, 2012, Peralta, 2012,”US ambassador…”, 2012). Furthermore, there were facets of the reporting that made it particularly influential; the events appealed to Islamic identity, the images from Cairo were especially vivid and the inaction by riot police legitimized the concerns of the protesters. Underlying these disparate aspects is a unifying principle; social norms. When dealing with norms a critical distinction to make is the difference between descriptive and injunctive norms. Injunctive norms represent people’s beliefs about what ought to be done in a situation whereas descriptive norms represent people’s beliefs about the prevalence of behaviors others engage in. When descriptive and injunctive norms combine with positive outcome expectations and an appeal to group identity, they are most influential (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005).

In the past-perceived denigration of Islam or Muhammad has resulted in protests for example the Danish cartoons (Laegaard, 2007), the US military accidentally burning Korans (D’Souza , 2012), the threat to burn a Koran by Terry Jones (Goldman, 2010) and the Dutch film “Fitna” (Hartoyo, 2010). The degree to which one observes others performing a behavior directly correlates to the belief that the behavior is correct (Cialdini, 1984). The frequency of these events combined with international media coverage has created a descriptive norm to react to attacks on Islam and Muhammad by protesting. Furthermore, many saw the images from Cairo on September 11, 2012. The video shows thousands of people surrounding the embassy chanting, whistling and even cheering. This makes it very salient that many people participated in the protest, which in turn bolsters the descriptive norm to protest.

Injunctive norms are beliefs about what one ought to do in a situation enforced through sanctions. When an individual does not adhere to injunctive norms others, who are aware may socially sanction the offender. The sanctions come in a variety of forms such as criticism, shame, disapproval and more. The key is that adherence to injunctive norms is enforced. Based on news articles there is evidence of an injunctive norm to protest because the next day Islamic leaders and governments condemned the film and some called for protests or violence. Hezbollah, Hamas and Afghan President Karzai denounced the film. The Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian state media called for protest while the Taliban and Basij called for violence. These responses are clearly expressing a course of action that one ought to engage in. This indicates social support for protests and condemnation of the film in fact the calls for action invoke an injunctive norm to protest. This is critical because norms are strongest when combining injunctive and descriptive norms and weakest when injunctive and descriptive norms are opposed to each other. In this case, past occurrences as well as the events of September 11, 2012 demonstrate a clear descriptive and injunctive norm to protest.

Next, outcome expectations affect the influence of norms. “ Outcome expectations are conceptualized as the product of a mental calculus that people perform between the benefits of taking actions and costs associated with those actions” (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005, p.134). Outcome expectations are improved both by reducing the costs of action and by increasing the benefits of taking action. The absence of repercussions in news articles minimized the perceived cost of action in Cairo and Benghazi. There were riot police in front of the embassy in Cairo who were passive during the protest. This demonstrated that there is little risk to violent protesting. With little risk of action, it takes much less benefit in order to motivate action. Potentially, protesting could result in benefits including influence on government action or policy but also it could provide cognitive and emotional benefits (Drury & Reicher, 2005, Drury & Reicher, 2009, Fedi, Mannarini & Rovere, 2012). The prospect of altering government action or policy is often is an important motivation for taking action, in fact the potential for government influence was particularly high due to the POS present at the time. Furthermore, individuals participate in protest for a variety of cognitive and emotional reasons. Group solidarity and expression of anger can be empowering while bearing witness to evil and participating in important events can be profoundly satisfying (Jasper, 1997, p. 82). These provide a benefit to individuals and can influence estimations of outcome expectations positively. At the same time the risk was shown to be minimal, which also impacts outcome expectations positively in turn these factors bolster the influence of the norm to protest the denigration of Muhammad.

Finally, group identity impacts the effect social norms have on individual behavior. If a norm appeals to a group identity and the individual shares that identity then the norm will effects behavior to a greater extend. In fact, the influence the norm to protest the film has over individual behavior directly relates to the degree Islamic identity is central to the individual’s identity (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Meaning, the norm to protest is most persuasive to those with a strong Islamic identity and least persuasive to those without an Islamic identity. The events of September 11, 2012, were particularly appealing to Islamic identity. Disparaging depictions of Muhammad, inherently related to Islamic identity, the primary driver of the protests. Second, the use of flags by the protesters made Islamic identity salient. The protesters carried black flags that read, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah”. In addition, they took down the American flag, destroyed it and replaced it with theirs. This was a symbolic victory over the opposition while at the same time reinforcing the group identity of the protesters. Finally, communication is more persuasive when all parties share a group identity (Cialdini, 1993, Myers, 1999). Communication of the norm by protesters, Islamic leaders and governments all of whom share Islamic increases the persuasiveness of the norm to protest.

The combination of descriptive and injunctive norms with heightened outcome expectations and a salient appeal to group identity has created a strong norm. This norm is a major factor in the spread of protests to other countries. However, it is not enough to cause action by itself; there must be an opportunity to act.

The Aftermath

The next wave of protests erupted on Thursday September 13 in Cairo, Yemen, Tunisia, Gaza Strip, Iran and Iraq, which resulted in four deaths, over 200 injuries and damage to the US embassy in Yemen. Each of these countries is politically unstable and that can offer greater political opportunity for action. Tunisia like Egypt and Libya went through a revolution in 2011 resulting in many of the same conditions as the other two (Dalacoura, 2011). Yemen has an exceptionally weak state (Dalacoura, 2011); in fact, Ansar al-Sharia (an affiliate of Al Qaeda) has taken control of some geographic areas. Iran has faced a disputed election and sporadic protests recently. Gaza has been engaged in violent conflict with Israel off and on for decades. Iraq is barely governing independently and still requires international support. These political instabilities can allow for the opportunity that is necessary for the protest norm to translate into action. It is also worthy of note that in three of the six countries that protested September 13 had a call to protest the day prior. In addition, statements denouncing the film came from Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the Al-Azhar scholars who are theologians at the 1st mosque founded in Cairo. Public condemnation combined with the violent protest of the 13th feeds into the descriptive and injunctive norm to protest the film. The quantity of protests, protesters, damage, deaths and injuries fueled descriptive norm for violent protest of the film. The injunctive norm is strengthen by the number of public statements against the film, the calls for protest and calls for violence all done by groups associated with Islamic identity.

On September 14, protests occurred in Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Sudan and Jordan resulting in eight deaths, dozens of injuries and damage to the British and German embassies in Sudan. Like the previous countries, instability may have played a role in the opportunity to protest. Sudan has recently split into two countries and has continued conflict over that. Hezbollah in Lebanon called for protests that day. There political conditions allowed protests to take place and the protest norm encouraged individuals to participate in protests. The further protests and violence served to strengthen the descriptive protest norm and thus increase its influence. The protests spread further from there causing property damage, injuries and deaths in dozens of countries by the end of the protest cycle. Each subsequent protest further strengthens the norm to protest and thus increases the influence of the norm on behavior.

Thus, the presence of increased political access, political divisions, elite allies and diminished repressed, served to promote political participation in Egypt and Libya making possible the events of September 11, 2012. Then the media connected the events to one another and the film “The Innocence of Muslims”, which established a norm for violent protest in response to the film. The combination of a descriptive and injunctive norm to protest with positive outcome expectations and an appeal to Islamic identity created a powerful norm. This norm then influenced individuals to protest the film, especially those who have a strong Islamic identity. Countries with greater political opportunities provided a fertile environment for protests to take hold. The further protest then enhanced the norm for violent protest and the stronger norm led to protests spreading to other countries especially those with political opportunity. These protests in turn bolstered the norm. This process resulted in a reciprocal loop in which political opportunity and the social norm to protest fed into one another strengthening both. This spread the protest and norm for violence far and wide to more than 50 countries causing dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries and damage to a half dozen embassies.

As a final note, it is important to understand that conditions present in September of 2012 are the basis of this analysis. The political environment is continually evolving in many of the countries involved in the protest cycle spawned by “The Innocence of Muslims”. Future revelations may provide further insight or clarification to relationship between political opportunity and the norm to protest.

Dalacoura, K. (2012). The 2011 uprisings in the Arab Middle East: political change and geopolitical implications. International affairs, 88(1), 63-79.

Della Porta, D. (1996). Social movements and the state: Thoughts on the policing of protest. Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, 62-92.

Rucht, D. (1996). The impact of national contexts on social movement structures: A cross-movement and cross-national comparison. Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, 185-204.

Sherwood, H. (2012, September 12). Muhammad Film: reaction around the Middle East. The Guardian. Retrieved September 24, 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk

Soltis, A. (2012, September 13). Riots Spread into Tunisia. New York Post. Retrieved November 18, 2012 from http://www.nypost.com

Tarrow, S. (1996). States and opportunities: The political structuring of social movements. Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, 41-61.

How many times have you held your nose when voting? How often have you voted for one candidate so the other wouldn’t win? I didn’t vote for Kerry; I voted against GW. I didn’t vote for Obama; I voted against Palin. This last time I couldn’t even bring myself to vote for either Obama or Romney, I ended up voting Gary Johnson. I am sick of “pick your poison” type elections.

I think we should be allowed to vote against candidates as well as for candidates. Everybody still only has one vote to place in any given election. The difference is that you can place it for or against a candidate. Votes for count as a positive one while votes against count as a negative one. Functionally this would be no different in terms of outcome than the current method. But it would be more honest. Then at least then we could see after an election how many people actually supported a candidate and how many simply didn’t want the other candidate to win. We could tell if a candidate is actually liked or not. Maybe just maybe it would shut some politicians about having a “mandate from the people”.

I would work more on re-districting so there are more swing counties. This last election had the least amount of counties who changed their vote from the prior election than any time in US history. Having so many solidly blue or red counties across the nation provides exactly zero incentive for these guys to work together.

If I’m a representative, the country at large could be crying for compromise, but my home district wants hardcore ideology. They voted me in, so who do I listen to? My home district’s ideologues.

This comment got me thinking about redistricting and what can be done about it. The US has 435 Congressional districts, each district must be of approximately equal population and every state gets a minimum of 1 Congressional district. After the census every 10 yrs the states set about creating a redistricting plan. Being in TX I had a nice view of the redistricting process. It seems that largely redistricting is about drawing a map that maximizes the number of solid districts and minimizes the swing districts. This is to the advantage of both parties because it allows them to focus resources into a few Congressional seats. Unfortunately when this happens you sometimes end up with ridiculous Congressional districts. My district contains people from both Austin and Houston, but Houston is 3hrs drive from Austin and both are population centers so there is no reason to combine them.

The problem is that no matter WHO does the redistricting it is a political process. If the legislature has the job of redistricting then the results will depend on the party in power at the time. If the job is handed off to a commission then it will become political because the members of the commission must be chosen and who is chosen greatly influences the results. When all is said and done redistricting is open to gerrymandering because no matter who is chosen to redistrict the process is open to political influence.

This is why I am proposing a drastic solution to redistricting. I propose that we remove people from the equation. Rather redistricting should be determined using a statistical method. Districts should be created to equalize population and minimize the distant between those in the district. Now I don’t know demographic and geographic statistical models but something akin to an Analysis of Variance(ANOVA) or Principal Component Analysis (PCA). If a statistical method was used then there would be no political involvement, it would be a completely neutral party. Also using a simple type model would be preferable since there would be fewer assumptions which means fewer places for tampering. I think that basing districts on equalizing population between districts and minimizing the distance between constituents in the district is a simple and common sense method of redistricting. But it also prevents gerrymandering.

House Republican leaders Friday proposed extending the federal debt limit by three months, marking a significant shift in GOP strategy that could reduce the market-rattling risk of the U.S. running out of cash to pay its bills.

The GOP proposal, which is expected to go before the House next week, includes a requirement that the House and Senate pass formal budgets by mid-April, but it does not include specific spending cuts. That marks a retreat from Republicans’ long-standing insistence that any debt-level increase be accompanied by comparable spending cuts….

The bill would require the House and Senate to pass a budget blueprint for the next fiscal year—or else members of Congress wouldn’t be paid.

“Members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job,” said Mr. Cantor. “No budget, no pay.”

Now this is one of the few things done by Congress which I might be able to agree with. I don’t like the idea of kicking the debt ceiling can down the road yet again. If that were all they were proposing I would be completely against another extension. But I have to say I like the idea that if Congress doesn’t do its job then they shouldn’t get paid. Why are we paying these clowns around $200k/yr to fight, bicker and screw over the country?

In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre there are a lot of proposals about how to curb gun violence. Obama has just urged Congressional action to implement gun control and unveiled 23 executive orders to curb gun violence. Some proposals are just common sense, some may help, some may not help and some may sound good but are difficult to implement. Well what are the proposals and how might they work?

Background Checks

The first major area of focus is background checks. Obama is calling for universal background checks when purchasing a firearm. In addition, several executive orders will be used to strengthen background checks by requiring federal agencies to share relevant data with the federal background check system (NICS), offering improved incentives for states to share information with NICS, review the categories of individuals prohibited from gun ownership, propose that law enforcement should run a background check before returning seized weapons and provide guidance to gun dealers on how to run a background check.

The call for Congress to legislate universal background checks looks pretty good overall. It is only common sense that if an individual is prohibited from purchasing firearms that should be enforced all the time, not just in certain venues. It shouldn’t matter where or from whom the gun is bought, the same rules should apply all the time. The prospects of universal background checks in Congress are about as good as anything can be these days. There is strong bipartisan public support for background checks for private and gun show sales, according to Pew 85% of respondents favored this proposal. So if anything could get through Congress this should be it.

But will it do anything? That is hard to tell; functionally our current system doesn’t have a background check because it can be dodged simply by purchasing guns at shows or privately. Thus there is no real way to see what the background check would do if universally implemented. It seems reasonable to assume that the background check could help some; it prevents guns from being purchased by convicts, documented addicts, those with a history of domestic violence, those with a restraining order from an intimate partner and mentally indigent individuals. That could help prevent some violence since criminals and addicts would have a harder time acquiring firearms. Unfortunately criminals don’t follow the law and can acquire guns illegally. In fact it is not that difficult to get a hold of a stolen gun. Also the background checks could help prevent some domestic violence by preventing the purchase of guns when a history of domestic violence or restraining order from an intimate partner is present. This group I think it might impact more than criminals and addicts. That is because domestic violence in itself doesn’t imply a link to criminals or access to stolen items. It is not uncommon for abusive individuals to be law-abiding citizens in every other aspect of their life so they may not attempt to illegally bypass the law.

Thus universal background checks are a mixed bag; they seem reasonable on the surface yet may not accomplish much in reality. Though of any proposal universal background checks enjoy the strongest public support so it may one of the most likely to pass through Congress.

Now background checks are only as good as the system used to check. For this reason Obama has several executive orders to strengthen the existing background check. He is requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system (NICS). This is a no brainer and I wonder why it hasn’t been done until now. If there is going to be a background check by the federal government then of course federal agencies should provide all the data they can to support the background check. A check is meaningless if the information being checked is missing or erroneous. Then Obama wants to improve the incentives for states to share data with NICS. Now this makes a bit more sense, information sharing between the states and federal government definitely leaves much to be desired. In order for state’s share information they must either be forced by law or they must be enticed with incentives. So greater incentives to share data will likely result in some states sharing more, if only to receive the incentive. That would increase the data available for NICS and thus its efficacy.

The next executive order is for a review of the categories of individuals prohibited from purchasing guns. This makes a lot of sense on the surface. In order for a background check to be meaningful it must ensure that those who are a threat to society are not allowed to obtain firearms. Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The big question is how do you identify those who pose a threat? It seems reasonable to assume that those with a history of violence or crime would be potential threats. But not all of those who would use guns to kill are going to have a history of such behavior. In fact potential perpetrators may not have a criminal record at all. It is not easy to pinpoint those who are dangerous even with extensive investigation like a psychological evaluation let alone identify those people using limited and incomplete bureaucratic records of the individual.

Moving on, Obama would like law enforcement to run a background check before returning any seized firearm. Now why does it take Presidential executive order to do this? Why isn’t this already happening? It only makes sense that if law enforcement gets a hold of a gun that they check to ensure it is legally owned prior to returning it. There is no reason this shouldn’t already be standard practice. If the gun is illegally owned then law enforcement shouldn’t give it back.

The final executive order for background checks is for the ATF to provide guidance for private sellers on how to run background checks. Again this is basic common sense. If Obama wants to require private sellers to run background checks then some guidance should be provided so it is done correctly. Though this is meaningless if Congress doesn’t pass legislation requiring universal background checks. Without such a requirement very very few would voluntarily go out of their way to run a background.

In conclusion Obama wants universal background checks and to strengthen the background checks by acquiring more data from state and federal agencies. While at the same time reviewing the categories of individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms. These are very common sense actions to take and have a great deal of bipartisan public support (85% in favor). Unfortunately any background check is only as good as the data that goes into it and the method used to identify potential threats. So that means there will always be people who are dangerous but can pass the background check.

Ban on Assault Weapons and Clip / Magazine Size

Obama called on Congress to ban assault weapons and limit clip / magazine size to 10 rounds. This proposition is likely to face serious political and practical challenges. The idea of banning assault weapons or limiting magazine capacity does not have the same level of support as making background checks universal. According to Pew 55% of the public favors a ban on assault weapons and 54% of the public favor a ban on high-capacity clips. Prima facia that looks good but upon closer examination the challenge becomes apparent. Though 55% of the public favors a ban on assault weapons there is a large partisan divide; 69% of Democrats favor this while only 44% of Republicans favor it. When it comes to a ban on high-capacity clips 54% favor it, yet only 46% of Republicans favor it while 64% Democrats favor it. That implies that an assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban would be likely to pass the Democrat controlled Senate but unlikely to pass the Republican controlled House. On top of that the NRA is very much opposed to any ban and they can wield a great deal of political power. So it is doubtful there is the political will to implement a ban.

Furthermore a ban may have little to no practical effect. For any ban of assault weapons to be meaningful it must ban ownership of those weapons not just production. The 1994 assault weapons ban only prohibited the production of new assault weapons yet allowed the possession and sale of pre-existing assault weapons. That means people could still buy and own assault weapons, the only difference was that the supply was limited. So functionally all it did was drive up the price on such weapons but if somebody wanted an assault weapon they could still obtain it legally. That does nothing to prevent the use of assault weapons in a mass shooting or other violent acts.

Now for the sake of argument assume that an absolute ban on production, sale and ownership of assault weapons effectively eliminates all assault weapons in the US. What impact would that have? Very little would change. The definition of assault weapons is not based on the fundamental function of a gun nor is it based on the killing capacity of a gun. Rather much of the definition is based on cosmetic features of a gun. The criteria for assault weapons requires a semi-automatic rifle to have two or more of the following: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, threaded barrel for a flash suppressor or a muzzle mount for firing rifle grenades. Now consider that both stock and pistol grip are completely cosmetic yet can qualify a rifle as an assault weapon. That means even if assault weapons are banned and completely removed from the public there will still exist equally deadly weapons that are only cosmetically different. An absolute ban of this nature would have no impact if all that changes are the cosmetic features on the weapons used. A shooter will still be able to use basically the same weapon or at least an equally deadly weapon.

Though an absolute ban on production, sale and possession of magazines over 10 rounds would have an effect but it would be rather minor. If magazines are restricted to a maximum of 10 rounds and larger magazines are unobtainable by the public then it might reduce the number of death or injuries. That is because if the magazine is smaller then the gun will need reloaded more often. Reloading takes some time, not much, but some time to reload. Most mass shootings take place over a very very brief period of time. If more of that time is spent reload then less is spent killing. So it is reasonable that smaller magazines could reduce the death toll. Though the reduction would likely be very small because we are only talking about the extra seconds needed to reload more often. But smaller magazines would have no effect on the frequency of mass shootings.

Mental Health

There has been a great deal of focus on mental health, much more so that any other gun debates. Most would agree that those who engage in mass shootings are mentally ill. A psychologically healthy individual does not go out and start shooting people. Even though mental health intuitively seems like a good place to focus on when trying to deal with gun violence it is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. For one there are only a handful of people who engage in mass shootings yet there are approximately 57.7 million Americans experiencing mental health disorders in a given year (National Alliance on Mental Illness). Most individuals with mental illness are not a threat to themselves or the public. Most are normal people like you or me, in fact you probably know more people with a mental disorder than you realize. That means there are a lot of people with mental illness but only a very small number who will be a major threat. This makes identification of individuals which are dangerous extremely difficult simply due to the number. A recent study of violent risk assessment showed that even experienced practitioners were only 70% accurate. Thus if all individuals with mental illness were screened for the risk of violence by experienced practitioners prior to being allowed to possess firearms would result in approximately 17.3 million(30% of 57.7 million ) Americans being denied the right to own firearms due to inaccuracy of the assessment.

Then there are the complexities of identifying the risk of violence itself in an individual which is not easy. In fact it takes specialized training that most mental health professionals don’t have. Furthermore, an accurate assessment of potential for violence is a lengthy and in-depth process. According to Barry Rosenfeld (Fordham University professor of psychology) “I typically have the benefit of a lengthy face-to-face interview, records on their criminal and mental health history, a tremendous amount of information at my disposal that the typical mental health professional on the fly simply doesn’t have.” Now consider if a full assessment of the risk of violence were required to purchase a firearm; that would be a rather expensive requirement. Assessments of that nature take many hours of work by highly trained professionals so the cost of such an assessment would easily exceed $1,000 and likely end up being several thousand dollars. In many cases the cost of assessment would be greater than the cost of the guns. Is it reasonable to expect anybody who wishes to own a gun to pay $1,000+ in order to be allowed to purchase a gun?

Furthermore assessments are only as good as the information used in the assessment. So if an individual has mental illness or a history of violence yet there is no record of it then the assessment will not take that into consideration. That means an individual struggling with a psychological disorder who has never sought treatment would have no records of treatment and thus that would not influence the assessment. Also individuals with a history of violence that don’t have a criminal record might slip through. Their violent history would not be accounted for in the assessment due to the absence of records.

In order to improve the quality of data and thus the quality of assessments Obama has written several executive orders. He is going clarify that health care reform does not prohibit doctors from asking about guns in the home. Though I doubt this will have any affect considering how much time most patients get with their doctors. I doubt doctors are going to spend their time asking about guns instead of focusing on the medical issues at hand. Next Obama wants to clarify to health care workers that federal law does not prevent them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement. But most health care workers already report threats of violence. They may not escalate it to law enforcement but it is usually report upward within the organization they work for. Then doctors or psychiatrists evaluate the potential threat before determining how to handle the situation. Now this could have some impact because I could see some health care workers reporting something that might prevent an incident. But I would suspect that if experienced mental health professions have a 30% error rate on violence risk assessment that untrained medical staff would have a very high error rate. So this likely would just result in many false leads being called into law enforcement rather than helping very much with the overall problem of gun violence.

The last executive order to help bolster mental health assessments is concerning. Obama would like to address unnecessary legal barriers such as HIPAA that would prevent states from sharing information with the background check system. On the surface that sounds very reasonable. But should HIPAA be weakened, HIPPA is what makes personal health care information private. Yeah it would only be releasing it to the background check system but who has access to that system and what do they get to see? Could gun dealers look up anybody they wanted and see their health care records? Would police be allowed to look that up without oversight? After seeing the FBI follow a couple of emails on the request of a friend which resulted in the resignation of Patraeus and General Allen one has to question how much more power do we want to give to law enforcement. If there were guarantees the information would be limited and there would be oversight then that is one thing. But simply giving law enforcement the ability to acquire health records is not something that should done.

Beyond that if everybody were required an evaluation prior to purchasing guns the evaluations themselves would suffer from less accuracy. That is because people would only be getting the assessment because it was required. They are going to try to do as little as possible and get it done with as quick as possible. People would not volunteer a bunch of extra information or be particular open about their feelings and thoughts. There would be no trust between the mental health professional and the individual being evaluated which means the quality of responses and information would be poor. On the other side of it, if a mental health professional does risk assessments all day every day they could become sloppy about it. Most people being assessed would not be a threat to the public or themselves. So the mental health professional would spend in ordinate amount of time doing assessments on non-threats with real threats only showing up rarely. It would be likely that a whole industry of violent risk assessment would crop up to accommodate the law (if it existed). As with other industries when this type of thing happens the quality of service decreases greatly. Rather than being an individualized assessment, it would become a conveyor belt of people being examined. The focus would shift toward evaluating people quickly and making more money than aiming for the highest possible accuracy. It would not be too unlike the medical marijuana industry, everybody knows you go in, pay your money and they will decide you need medical marijuana. Well violence assessments could follow the same path and simply become an expensive formality.

Thus using an assessment or background type check on the mentally ill for the risk of violence would be error prone and expensive. It would incorrectly identify literally millions of individuals as being a risk and deny them the right to own guns. And it could just turn into an expensive formality rather than an accurate diagnostic assessment.

If an assessment is not a good solution then what other options are on the table?

Well Obama has 3 executive orders regarding regulations of health care insurance. He is going to clarify and/or finalize regulations for the scope of mental health coverage for Medicaid, the health care exchanges and mental health parity. These would be regulations governing mental health care received through insurance companies and would affect a majority of Americans. If done well this could actually help a lot of people. Mental health is not always covered as well as medical benefits. Many people have difficulty accessing mental health services because their coverage is insufficient or has limits on the amount of care provided. By increasing mental health coverage it would be possible to improve the overall mental health of the nation. This is something that could help reduce gun violence by mitigating the effects of mental illness. Improving mental health focuses on the root cause of mass shootings by addressing the underlying mental illness before the individual becomes homicidal. Though this approach would not cause an immediate change, rather it could take years for this to take full effect. But it may still help.

Additionally, this could improve the lives of literally millions of Americans who suffer with mental illness. Those individuals might be able to receive more visits and therapy, it could reduce the out-of-pocket costs for mental health services and it may improve access to mental health services. So if these regulations and clarifications are done correctly they would benefit the nation and could help with gun violence.

The next Obama has called on Congress to create an initiative that provides mental health training to teachers and others that work with children. The focus would be on recognizing mental illness as it develops in children then getting those children mental health services earlier in the development of mental illness. According to Dr. Paramjit Joshi, the president-elect of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 3 out of 4 people with mental illness develop their condition by young adulthood. So trying to identify mental illness early in life only makes sense. It could improve the outcomes of those individuals. Also it could prevent gun violence by eliminating the problem before it becomes a problems. This is a proposal which could have a positive effect if implemented correctly. Though again this method would not have an immediate impact on gun violence. It could take years for the full effect to occur since it involved improving the mental health of the younger generation.

Enforcement

Obama put out 4 executive orders dealing directly with enforcement. First he is issuing an executive memorandum requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. That sounds good and all but why hasn’t this been done before now? Why does there need to be a presidential order to trace guns? This should already be taking place. Anyways this could help a little. The more illegal guns that are taking off the streets the better off we are. But frequently it is legal guns that kill which this would not address in the least bit.

Second is to make a DOJ report on lost and stolen guns available to law enforcement. Again why hasn’t this already happened? Considering how bad gun violence is in this country why hasn’t the DOJ given information to law enforcement to help them in dealing with the issue of gun violence? This might help law enforcement with their job and thus help with gun violence. It is easier to address an issue if provided with sufficient information. Though it is unlikely a DOJ report on guns will have a large effect.

Third Obama has nominated an ATF director and called on Congress to confirm him. Well again why hasn’t this already been done? The position has been vacant since 2006 and neither Bush nor Obama has gotten a new one confirmed. That is simply ridiculous and demonstrates that the Senate is unable (or unwilling) to do the job they are paid for.

Obama’s final executive order is to maximize enforcement and prosecution of gun crimes. Once again this should already been done. It should not require an executive order for law enforcement and prosecutors to do their jobs.

So the enforcement steps Obama is taking sound good at first. That is until you realize that they are step which should have been taken all along. It should not require an event like Sandy Hook or executive order for these four things to occur, at least if the government was functional.

General Safety

Among the 23 executive order there are 5 dealing with general safety issues. For the most part these are common sense and rational ideas. First is a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. If done well this could be wonderful. Teaching people proper handling of guns can be one of the best ways to reduce accidental deaths from guns. It may not affect mass shootings but it could save lives. The next one is to review safety standards for gun locks and safes. This seems reasonable, gun safes and locks should be effective. Though it won’t really curb gun violence since safes and locks are used for storing guns. But it could help reduce accidental deaths which is good. The third one is to provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. This could help by providing greater security at schools and quicker response time in case of an event. Unfortunately with all the cuts to education it could be too expensive for many schools. Also that would only protect schools so it would have no effect on gun violence outside of schools like the Aurora, CO shooting which was in a movie theater. So it could help a bit but really it’s greatest effect would be putting parents minds at ease. The fourth general safety executive order is to develop model emergency response plans for schools, university and houses of worship. This makes sense though after developing them they need to ensure they are distributed to relevant institutions. It could help by providing an idea of how to deal with a shooting and thus better preparing people to react more appropriately. That could help get some people out of danger quicker and potentially reduce injuries and deaths in a shooting. Though it would do nothing to prevent the shooting itself. Finally Obama wants the Attorney General to release a report on gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to innovate and improve them. This seems like nothing but a political statement. A report on safety technologies really isn’t going to do anything. Then telling industry to create something new isn’t going to have an affect. You can’t just tell somebody to innovate and expect they will have the next great idea.

So for the most part these could be good. They help to generally make guns safer and make schools a touch safer. Unfortunately they won’t do much to reduce gun violence. The gun safety propositions may reduce accidental deaths and the school plans (school resource officer and emergency planning) could mitigate the damage of a mass shooting but would do nothing to prevent it.

Conclusion

Well that pretty much covers everything Obama called on Congress to do and all his executive orders. There is some good, some bad and some that wouldn’t matter at all. When it comes down to it there is no one single solution, it will take many to address the issue of gun violence. Just like any security system, one part will not stop everybody. Rather it takes layers of security each catching a proportion so that in the end most are dealt with. Making background checks universal may have a positive effect though has many holes. Mental health assessment are unlikely to have any positive affect and are apt to take away the rights of millions of Americans to own guns. Though improving the overall mental health system could be a benefit for the country as a whole, not just in regards to gun violence. Better mental health treatment will prevent a whole host of problems and improve the quality of life for millions. A ban on assault weapons and magazines over 10 rounds would seem to be ineffective. There are too many hole to fall through. Grandfathering in existing weapons makes it completely pointless. Even if the existing weapons were banned it would be ineffective because there are plenty of equally deadly weapons which are not considered assault weapons. The increase in enforcement seems reasonable and could have a positive effect but why hasn’t it happened until now? All of the enforcement aspects are things which should have been already done, not some novel idea. Finally the general safety aspects could be good. They have the potential of reducing accidental deaths and possibly reduce the number of injuries and deaths from a mass shooting. Unfortunately they are unlikely to reduce the number of mass shootings which take place.

The debt ceiling debacle taking place right now is the most asinine of all manufactured crisis Congress has put the US through. Congress holds the purse strings, they decided to spend money. But they chose to spend more than the total federal revenue so we are running a deficit. Then Congress starts arguing over whether we should incur the debt, which they themselves already appropriated. If Congress had an issue with the deficit they should have engaged that when deciding to spend the money in the first place not when it comes time to pay the bill.

Then to top it off Congress is playing a game of chicken over the debt ceiling. They are threatening to force the US to default on payments unless spending is cut. But wait a second; Congress decided how much to spend in the first place. So they are threatening to harm the whole country because they are unhappy with their own choices.

Furthermore what would a default result in? It would result in damage to the US credit rating and an increase in borrowing costs. If the US pays higher interest rates for debt then more of the federal budget will go to simply paying interest on our credit which will only increase the national debt. Thus Congress is so concerned about the national debt that they are willing to sacrifice our credit rating and increase the national debt to argue about decreasing the national debt. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Finally a US default could negatively impact the US economy and the world economy. That would in turn reduce federal revenues thereby increasing the national deficit and national debt. Despite all the political talk about trying to improve the economy, lower unemployment and help the middle class they are more than willing to throw us all under the bus for a game of political brinksmanship.

The debt ceiling is by far the most asinine of all manufactured crisis. Congress chooses to spend to much, then Congress decides that they didn’t want to rack up that much debt so they threaten to default on the payments Congress already chose to appropriate. So their solution is to default resulting in higher borrowing rates and depressing the economy which in turn will drop federal revenues and increase the national deficit and debt.

Well I hope if they drive the US over this fiscal cliff that they get some rather large cuts to spending because we will need them to make up for the increased borrowing costs and the hit to the economy.

Ideological divides are preventing Congress from acting, polarizing the parties and splitting the nation apart. Since Congress is too busy arguing over ideology, they are unable to focus on the problems we face as a nation, causing the constituency to pay the price of inaction. This has reached the point that party affiliation is more important than the merits of any potential solution. This leads congressional members to outright reject any proposal made by the other party and solely embrace their own party’s ideas.

This ideological battle must stop. It only serves to create a gridlock in Congress while dividing the country into red and blue. Instead, we must unite in order to solve the problems which have the potential to destroy this great nation. We need to focus on practical solutions rather than ideological divides. For these reasons I propose the creation of a third political party, the Pragmatist Party.

The party’s platform will focus on the challenges our country faces and practical solutions to them. It will not take an ideological position. It’s members are free to hold any ideology they believe. This will prevent dissent over concerns that are inconsequential and irrelevant to the governance of the nation and allow us to unite to fix this country we all love so dearly. Our differences have always made the USA strong by bringing forth a variety of perspectives and novel approaches. Let us use that strength for the betterment of all. For this reason the Pragmatist Party welcomes people of all stripes who wish to engage the challenges of the 21st century. This approach to politics will bring forth many benefits. First it will allow liberals, conservatives and independents to engage the issues at hand. Second it will promote cooperation in politics. Finally it will serve to depolarize both Democrats and Republicans.

Since the Pragmatist Party holds no ideological positions conservatives, liberals and independents are all welcome to join. Rather than being bound by party ideology, party members are free to focus on the merits and flaws of potential solutions. This allows open debate of issues, proposals, and the efficacy of those proposals. Through open debate of all ideas it more likely that we will find practical means of engaging that which we seek to ameliorate.

Next the Pragmatist Party can help to bring about political cooperation. By bringing together independents, liberals and conservatives to honestly engage the issue at hand, we are more apt to create balanced approaches which appeal to a broader spectrum of the populace. This places cooperation at the center of the Pragmatist Party instead if compliance to the party line. Dissent and disagreement are freely accepted as a necessary predicate to cooperative exploration of ideas. This grants the freedom of polite disagreement while keeping in mind that finding an effective solution is more important than being right. Which in turn minimizes the divide between each of us and accentuates our unity.

Furthermore having a party composed of conservatives, liberals and independents can promote cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. It would provide a neutral ground for new ideas. The ideas brought forth from the Pragmatist Party would be neither Democrat or Republican. Thus neither Republicans nor Democrats will feel compelled to dismiss them outright due to being affiliated with the opposition. Additionally, the Pragmatist Party can serve to broker compromises between Democrats and Republicans since it already unites elements from both parties. Both parties can be confident that they will have a fair opportunity to air their thoughts and concerns. These elements serve to encourage political cooperation rather than political divisiveness.

Finally the Pragmatist Party will help to depolarize Democrats and Republicans. By fostering open engagement of issues and cooperation between disparate elements, people can begin to see what unities us rather than what divides us. Through mutually beneficial positive interaction we can come to see that politics are not a zero-sum game. Good legislation can benefit all parties and the country as a whole. Whereas congressional gridlock can harm us all. Politics are not a matter of one side winning at the expense of the other side loosing. We can all win or we can all loose, the choice is ours.